Caracterización de especies

All eight of the studies assessed how respondents’ circumstances had changed since leaving welfare. As noted earlier, such changes cannot be attributed to the termination of bene- fits, but these data are suggestive. In almost all cases, the comparison was made by asking re- spondents to recall their situation while on welfare.12

Employment and Earnings

Table 6.6 shows the employment rates of respondents in their last months on welfare and at the follow-up interview. As discussed earlier, there was a modest increase in employment over time in North Carolina and Virginia but little change in the other states.13

These results suggest that the imposition of a time limit does not necessarily cause large numbers of respondents to start working — even in states like Ohio and South Carolina, where many people were not working when their cases were closed. This is consistent with the results from several random assignment studies presented in Chapter 5, which showed that employ- ment impacts did not change substantially when families began reaching time limits.

However, a detailed analysis in the North Carolina study shows that averages can hide dynamic employment patterns. Although the employment rate was only modestly higher at the six-month follow-up point than in the last month of benefit receipt, about 60 percent of those who were not working when their case closed worked in the following six months, and more

12_{It may be difficult for respondents to recall their situation while on welfare. Also, their perception}

of their earlier status may have been colored by more recent events.

13_{Of course, respondents could have responded to the time limit by finding a job a few months before}

than one-half were employed six months later. Conversely, fewer than half of the respondents who were employed when they left welfare were still working in the same job six months later. About one-fourth were still working, but in a different job, and another one-fourth were not employed.

The earnings data shown in Table 6.6 suggest that some people may have increased their work hours after leaving welfare — although the results are somewhat difficult to interpret because different people were working at the two points.14

The Florida FTP, North Carolina, and Virginia studies provide additional information because they conducted more than one round of interviews. Thus, it is possible to see how em- ployment rates (and other outcomes) vary over a lengthy post-welfare follow-up period.

In Virginia, the employment rate increased slightly in the months after case closure and then leveled off: 62 percent were employed in the month of case closure, 71 percent at the six-

14_{When earnings data are obtained from administrative records, it is impossible to tell whether an in-}

crease over time is due to higher wages, more hours of employment per week, or more weeks of work in a quarter. However, it seems unlikely that growth in hourly wages could have been substantial in such a short follow-up period.

Welfare Time Limits Table 6.5

Employment and Food Sufficiency Among Time-Limit Leavers North

Outcome Connecticut Carolina Utah

Employed (%) 80 63 43

Food measures (%): Enough and kinds of food

we want to eat 34 53 28

Enough but not kinds of food

we want to eat 44 23 53

Sometimes not enough food 16 21 13

Often not enough food 6 3 6

SOURCES: Connecticut: Hunter-Manns et al., 1998; North Carolina: Richardson et al., 1999; Utah: Taylor et al., 2000.

month follow-up point, and 69 percent at the 18-month interview. Once again, however, the underlying pattern was dynamic: 92 percent of respondents worked at some point in the 18- month period, and 63 percent experienced at least one spell of unemployment. Hourly wages among those employed were 13 percent higher at the 18-month point than at the 6-month point, and average weekly work hours were also somewhat higher (although it is important to note once again that different people were working at the two points). Interestingly, the percentage of

State/Evaluation Before After Before After

Connecticut (6)a 85 83 878 1,015

Florida FTP (varies)b 57 58 410 661

Ohio (6) 51 53 n/a n/a

North Carolina (6) 54 63 n/a n/a

South Carolina (12)c 51 53 375 660

Virginia (6)d 63 71 848 902

Employed (%) Monthly Earnings ($) Welfare Time Limits

Employment and Earnings of Time-Limit Leavers, Table 6.6

Before and After Exit

SOURCES: Connecticut: Hunter-Manns and Bloom, 1999, and Melton and Bloom, 2000; Florida FTP: Bloom et al., 2000, and MDRC calculations; Ohio: Bania et al., 2001; North Carolina: Richardson et al., 1999; South Carolina: Richardson et al., 2001; Virginia: Gordon et al., 1999.

NOTES: Unless otherwise noted, the data were collected from the follow-up surveys. The figures in parentheses show approximately how many months after exit the interviews took place.

aMonthly earnings data come from administrative records in the quarter prior to exit and the second quarter after exit; quarterly earnings were divided by 3.

bData are from administrative records for the quarter prior to termination and the fourth quarter after termination; quarterly earnings were divided by 3.

cData are from administrative records for the quarter of exit and the fourth quarter after exit.

dData are for cohort 1 only; as a result, the employment rate at follow-up does not match the rate in Table 6.2.

respondents working in jobs that offered health benefits stayed largely unchanged, but the pro- portion who were enrolled in a company plan rose from 33 percent to 51 percent, perhaps re- flecting the expiration of transitional Medicaid coverage or respondents remaining in jobs long enough to qualify for employer coverage.

The patterns are similar in North Carolina: The employment rate increased at first and then remained roughly constant (54 percent were employed in the last benefit month, 63 percent at the 6-month point, and 66 percent at the 12-month point). Wages and hours increased be- tween the two interviews. The proportion of employed respondents working in jobs that offered health insurance did not change much, but the proportion who were enrolled in company plans nearly doubled, from 33 percent to 65 percent.

The Florida FTP evaluation studied employment patterns for a small group of leavers who were interviewed four times in the 18 months after they left welfare: Approximately one- third worked steadily throughout the period, one-third worked sporadically, and one-third did not work at all.

Income Before and After Leaving Welfare

Most of the studies asked respondents to compare their monthly income in their last month on welfare with their income in the month prior to the follow-up interview. Only two studies — Florida FTP and Virginia — examined dollar income averages at more than one point. The Florida FTP study did so by interviewing a small sample of time-limit leavers around the time their benefits were canceled and then at 6-month intervals thereafter, while the Virginia study asked respondents to recall their income during their last month on assistance and to re- port their income in the month prior to the 6- and 18-month interviews.15

In Virginia, average income was slightly lower 6 months after exit than during the last month on assistance. However, average income at the 18-month point was slightly higher than at either earlier point. About 45 percent of respondents reported an increase of more than 10 percent in their income between case closure and the 18-month interview. Almost as many, 41 percent, reported a decrease of 10 percent or more. The proportion of families with very low income (below $1,000 per month) decreased during this period.

The Florida study also found that average income was lower 6 months after exit than during the last month on welfare. About one-fourth of respondents had higher income at the

15_{The income measure in Virginia includes the respondent’s earnings plus household income from}

TANF, Food Stamps, child support, SSI, and unemployment insurance. It does not include earnings of other household members. Because the percentage of respondents living with another employed adult increased over time, the study authors report that the 18-month income estimate may be understated.

follow-up point, while the rest had lower income. Interestingly, the Florida FTP study found that the respondents most likely to lose income were those who were working in both the last benefit month and the month before the 6-month follow-up interview.

The other studies asked respondents to compare their income or their general well-being at the two points — without trying to obtain detailed dollar amounts for the pre-exit period. Specifically:

• In South Carolina, 47 percent of respondents agreed that they had more money than while they were on welfare; 53 percent disagreed.

• In North Carolina, 56 percent agreed that they were a little or a lot better off one year after leaving welfare, and only 15 percent said they were a little or a lot worse off.

• In Connecticut, a fairly high-grant state with a very generous earnings disre- gard, only 20 percent of respondents reported that they were more satisfied with their standard of living after leaving welfare.

• In Massachusetts, about 40 percent reported that they had more income after leaving welfare, while an equal proportion reported that they had less to live on (about 20 percent reported that their income was about the same). About half reported that their expenses were higher, while only 8 percent reported that their expenses were lower.

• In Utah, 49 percent reported that life in general was worse since their case closed. Thirty percent reported that life was about the same, and only 21 per- cent reported that life was better.

Although the patterns vary, in most states, a somewhat greater proportion of respon- dents believed that they were worse off financially than they had been while on welfare. It is important to recall that — particularly in states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia — a large proportion of respondents had been mixing work and welfare before reaching the time limit. Upon reaching the limit, they lost their supplemental welfare grant, resulting in a loss of income. The fact that families saw their income decline over time, however, does not neces- sarily mean that they were worse off than they would have been without welfare reform (with- out the reforms, they would not have received the expanded disregards).

Hardships Before and After Leaving Welfare

Several of the studies asked respondents to report whether they had experienced spe- cific hardships before and after leaving welfare. Although the patterns vary, it appears that hard-

ships are more common in the post-exit period. This is consistent with the fact that many fami- lies had lower income. For example:

• In North Carolina, 24 percent reported that they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat in the six months after leaving welfare, while only 8 per- cent reported that they had experienced this hardship in their last six months on welfare.

• In South Carolina, respondents reported that they were more likely to get be- hind in paying rent or utility bills, and to have their phone or utilities discon- nected, in the year after leaving welfare than in the year before leaving welfare.

• In Massachusetts, 24 percent were classified as “food insecure with hunger” after leaving welfare, compared with 13 percent who reported that they had experienced this hardship before leaving welfare.

• In Connecticut, 29 percent reported at follow-up that they sometimes or often relied on low-cost food to feed the children, because they were running out of money. Only 15 percent reported that this had been true in their last month on welfare.

A few of the studies asked questions about the well-being of respondents’ children be- fore and after leaving welfare. There is no evidence that children were doing worse in the post- welfare period.

• In Massachusetts, 29 percent reported that child-rearing was better after leav- ing welfare than before; 18 percent reported that child-rearing was worse.

• In North Carolina, substantial numbers of respondents reported that their children were experiencing school-related problems, but there is no clear pat- tern of improvement or decay relative to the period before families left welfare.

• In South Carolina, the proportion of respondents who reported that their chil- dren’s behavior and school performance were better than they had been one year earlier was larger than the proportion who reported that behavior and school performance had gotten worse.

• The Utah study reported some deterioration over time in child-related out- comes, but the results are not reported separately for time-limit leavers.